7 ms·

Fascinating section is regarding a 2016 study by the NOAA that found the US could cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80%, by 2030, using existing technologies. “T

by gdubs 7y ago

Fascinating section is regarding a 2016 study by the NOAA that found the US could cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80%, by 2030, using existing technologies. “That scenario didn’t rely on some hoped-for storage breakthrough, just a network of transmissions lines”

southern_cross 7y ago
I don't think I've seen the particular study you reference, but if it's like most others that I have seen then it's probably mostly hogwash, based on bogus numbers and wishful thinking. BTW, the Oklahoma-to-Tennessee transmission line referenced in this article was supposed to terminate in my area, where it would connect to TVA's system. But TVA told them that they didn't need the electricity and didn't want it (see below), so nothing ever got built. Between this and the other difficulties referenced in the article, they finally gave up on the notion and sold out to someone else, and that someone else now finds itself on the wrong side of some bankruptcy issues. To wit, certain customers of theirs are having financial difficulties and are trying to get out from under their contracts, with at least one very large customer now using bankruptcy as a lever. As far as TVA itself goes, they currently have a good mix of hydro, nuclear, coal, natural gas (some of which has recently replaced coal), a little bit of wind (with no plans to add more AFAIK), and now some solar, which is a growing part of their base. (There's also been some noise lately about maybe finishing up a nuclear station that was halted halfway and mothballed decades ago, but I don't think that's going to happen.) The article mentions a politician who apparently is anti-wind and may have caused some difficulties here. But there is also another politician who is pro-solar and who may be influencing TVA's activities in that regard.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  Assuming the "could, using existing technologies" include moderate political will, it's easy to adjust the taxes to make them want to buy wind. I don't think that's wishful thinking, it's just the difference between "could" and "will".
  - natermer 7y ago
    Sure. If you are willing to torpedo the economy you could accomplish a lot. At least until people start showing up with pitchforks and torches. And by 'torpedo the economy' I mean raise energy costs up to the point were all this energy pipe dreams becomes viable. Of course if people were interested in actually solving the problem then we would be building nuclear power plants left and right and wouldn't have to worry about insanely long transmission lines.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      Taking 3 cents per kWh from coal and giving it to wind would not torpedo the economy. Nuclear power plants are fine too.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      You know what else will torpedo the economy, with nothing we can do about it at all? Catastrophic climate change.
      - southern_cross 7y ago
        > Catastrophic climate change. Which is probably just not going to happen, for the most part. The people pushing this stuff are generally just lying about it (lies of omission in many cases), and they should be ashamed of themselves. And we as a whole should be treating them quite harshly for it, rather than accommodating them. By way of example, lately they've been talking a lot about how melting permafrost will release lots of CO2 and methane (greenhouse gases), as biological activity kicks in which causes old organic matter to break down. But what they fail to mention (and this is an intentional omission on their part, in my opinion) is that pretty much as soon as that starts happening, other biological activity will kick in which mitigates those emissions, since a lot of things use that stuff for food. So while some extra CO2 and methane might very well be emitted, this will be far more limited in scope than they let on. It's just scare tactics, mostly.
        adrianN 7y ago
maxxxxx 7y ago
I would like to see that study.
- epistasis 7y ago
  Here's an Ars Technica write up of a study like that, if it's not the one the original poster had in mind: > A new study released Monday looks into what would happen if that limitation were eliminated. It envisions a massive web of high-voltage, direct-current transmission lines, hooked up to 32 nodes spread across the US. This allows a massive spread of renewable power that could be dispatched anywhere in the nation. The result is a grid with dramatically lower carbon emissions and the bonus of lower costs to consumers. https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/making-a-single-us-electrical-system-boosts-renewables-lowers-costs/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/making-a-single-us-e... Of course it's one thing to engineer a carbon- and cost-minimal grid in theory, it's another thing to try to construct a market that could reach that optimum, or get it enacted politically. This HVDC network is something I think of every few months, not only for the idea itself, but for the futility of a really really good idea that has every bit of politics stacked against it.
- gdubs 7y ago
  Haven’t read it yet, but this looks like it might be it: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2921 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2921 The WSJ article is an excerpt from a coming book, so I’d imagine the study will be listed in the footnotes.
- southern_cross 7y ago
  PDF link: http://www.tresamigasllc.com/docs/nclimate2921.pdf http://www.tresamigasllc.com/docs/nclimate2921.pdf
sjwright 7y ago
If that was true, it would be implemented quickly if carbon emissions weren’t free. (I’m not a rabid greenie but it still boggles my mind that we let companies dump shit in the air for free.)
- epistasis 7y ago
  Not just companies, but individuals on a massive scale. In California, 41% of carbon emissions are from transportation, the largest single source. (IMHO we need to also legalize car-free living in addition to just a carbon tax; it's not much use to tax emissions unless we allow mixed use density and transit, and most cities do not allow that to be built anywhere. )
  - benj111 7y ago
    In what way is car free living illegal?
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      Illegal, no. Economically inefficient pain in the butt, yes.
    - sbierwagen 7y ago
      Many California municipalities mandate a certain number of parking spots per housing unit, and also restrict the height of buildings. These laws act to reduce housing density, so that owning a car is required.
      - benj111 7y ago
        I'm aware of that, I don't think that makes owning a car a legal requirement though. Parts of San Francisco predate the car, so I assume density is high enough to support car free living.
        bobthepanda 7y ago
crumpets 7y ago
Well then the hoped for transmission lines must have been financially ridiculous to build or else it would have been done. If there is one thing you should have leaned about the energy market at this point, it’s that participants tend to favor money over idealism. If your mental model relies on them choosing fossil fuels over money, it’s wrong.
- epistasis 7y ago
  Building new transmission lines are mostly a political problem, not a technical nor economic one. Nobody wants to allow anything to change near them anymore. The chances of new transmission are extremely slim no matter the economic or environmental benefits because of the process that has been enacted over the past decades.

by gdubs 7y ago

southern_cross 7y ago

I don't think I've seen the particular study you reference, but if it's like most others that I have seen then it's probably mostly hogwash, based on bogus numbers and wishful thinking. BTW, the Oklahoma-to-Tennessee transmission line referenced in this article was supposed to terminate in my area, where it would connect to TVA's system. But TVA told them that they didn't need the electricity and didn't want it (see below), so nothing ever got built. Between this and the other difficulties referenced in the article, they finally gave up on the notion and sold out to someone else, and that someone else now finds itself on the wrong side of some bankruptcy issues. To wit, certain customers of theirs are having financial difficulties and are trying to get out from under their contracts, with at least one very large customer now using bankruptcy as a lever. As far as TVA itself goes, they currently have a good mix of hydro, nuclear, coal, natural gas (some of which has recently replaced coal), a little bit of wind (with no plans to add more AFAIK), and now some solar, which is a growing part of their base. (There's also been some noise lately about maybe finishing up a nuclear station that was halted halfway and mothballed decades ago, but I don't think that's going to happen.) The article mentions a politician who apparently is anti-wind and may have caused some difficulties here. But there is also another politician who is pro-solar and who may be influencing TVA's activities in that regard.

Dylan16807 7y ago
Assuming the "could, using existing technologies" include moderate political will, it's easy to adjust the taxes to make them want to buy wind. I don't think that's wishful thinking, it's just the difference between "could" and "will".
- natermer 7y ago
  Sure. If you are willing to torpedo the economy you could accomplish a lot. At least until people start showing up with pitchforks and torches. And by 'torpedo the economy' I mean raise energy costs up to the point were all this energy pipe dreams becomes viable. Of course if people were interested in actually solving the problem then we would be building nuclear power plants left and right and wouldn't have to worry about insanely long transmission lines.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    Taking 3 cents per kWh from coal and giving it to wind would not torpedo the economy. Nuclear power plants are fine too.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    You know what else will torpedo the economy, with nothing we can do about it at all? Catastrophic climate change.
    - southern_cross 7y ago
      > Catastrophic climate change. Which is probably just not going to happen, for the most part. The people pushing this stuff are generally just lying about it (lies of omission in many cases), and they should be ashamed of themselves. And we as a whole should be treating them quite harshly for it, rather than accommodating them. By way of example, lately they've been talking a lot about how melting permafrost will release lots of CO2 and methane (greenhouse gases), as biological activity kicks in which causes old organic matter to break down. But what they fail to mention (and this is an intentional omission on their part, in my opinion) is that pretty much as soon as that starts happening, other biological activity will kick in which mitigates those emissions, since a lot of things use that stuff for food. So while some extra CO2 and methane might very well be emitted, this will be far more limited in scope than they let on. It's just scare tactics, mostly.
      - adrianN 7y ago

maxxxxx 7y ago

I would like to see that study.

epistasis 7y ago
Here's an Ars Technica write up of a study like that, if it's not the one the original poster had in mind: > A new study released Monday looks into what would happen if that limitation were eliminated. It envisions a massive web of high-voltage, direct-current transmission lines, hooked up to 32 nodes spread across the US. This allows a massive spread of renewable power that could be dispatched anywhere in the nation. The result is a grid with dramatically lower carbon emissions and the bonus of lower costs to consumers. https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/making-a-single-us-electrical-system-boosts-renewables-lowers-costs/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/making-a-single-us-e... Of course it's one thing to engineer a carbon- and cost-minimal grid in theory, it's another thing to try to construct a market that could reach that optimum, or get it enacted politically. This HVDC network is something I think of every few months, not only for the idea itself, but for the futility of a really really good idea that has every bit of politics stacked against it.
gdubs 7y ago
Haven’t read it yet, but this looks like it might be it: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2921 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2921 The WSJ article is an excerpt from a coming book, so I’d imagine the study will be listed in the footnotes.
southern_cross 7y ago
PDF link: http://www.tresamigasllc.com/docs/nclimate2921.pdf http://www.tresamigasllc.com/docs/nclimate2921.pdf

sjwright 7y ago

If that was true, it would be implemented quickly if carbon emissions weren’t free. (I’m not a rabid greenie but it still boggles my mind that we let companies dump shit in the air for free.)

epistasis 7y ago
Not just companies, but individuals on a massive scale. In California, 41% of carbon emissions are from transportation, the largest single source. (IMHO we need to also legalize car-free living in addition to just a carbon tax; it's not much use to tax emissions unless we allow mixed use density and transit, and most cities do not allow that to be built anywhere. )
- benj111 7y ago
  In what way is car free living illegal?
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Illegal, no. Economically inefficient pain in the butt, yes.
  - sbierwagen 7y ago
    Many California municipalities mandate a certain number of parking spots per housing unit, and also restrict the height of buildings. These laws act to reduce housing density, so that owning a car is required.
    - benj111 7y ago
      I'm aware of that, I don't think that makes owning a car a legal requirement though. Parts of San Francisco predate the car, so I assume density is high enough to support car free living.
      - bobthepanda 7y ago

crumpets 7y ago

Well then the hoped for transmission lines must have been financially ridiculous to build or else it would have been done. If there is one thing you should have leaned about the energy market at this point, it’s that participants tend to favor money over idealism. If your mental model relies on them choosing fossil fuels over money, it’s wrong.

epistasis 7y ago
Building new transmission lines are mostly a political problem, not a technical nor economic one. Nobody wants to allow anything to change near them anymore. The chances of new transmission are extremely slim no matter the economic or environmental benefits because of the process that has been enacted over the past decades.